 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / September 2008Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults
Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults By The Associated Press Friday, February 29, 2008 DURHAM, N.H. - New research by a University of New Hampshire domestic abuse expert says spanking children affects their sex lives as adults. Professor Murray Straus concludes that children who are spanked are more likely as adults to coerce partners to have sex, to have unprotected sex and to have masochistic sex. Other studies have shown the link between spanking and physical violence, but Straus said his research is the first to show a link between corporal punishment and sexual behavior. Straus, co-director of UNHs Family Research Laboratory, conducted a study in the mid-1990s in which he asked 207 students at three colleges whether theyd ever been aroused by masochistic sex. He also asked them if theyd been spanked as children. He found that students who were spanked were nearly twice as likely to like masochistic sex. He has bundled that study with three new ones that explore the connections between corporal punishment, coerced sex and risky sex. He presented all four studies this week at the American Psychological Associations Summit on Violence and Abuse in Relationships in Bethesda, Md. Straus said his study found adults who were spanked as children are more likely to coerce their partners to have sex. Straus asked 14,000 college students in 32 different countries whether they strongly disagreed, disagreed, agreed or strongly agreed with this statement: "I was spanked or hit a lot before age 12." He also asked whether they had ever verbally or physically coerced an uninterested partner to have sex. He found a big difference between students who said theyd been hit a lot before age 12 and those who said they hadnt. For every increased step on Strauss four-step scale of agreement, men were 10 percent more likely to have verbally coerced sex from a partner by insisting on sex or threatening to end the relationship if the partner refused. Women were 12 percent more likely to have done that. Previous studies have shown that 90 percent of parents strike their toddlers, a statistic thats held steady throughout the 30 years Straus has researched corporal punishment. Meanwhile, the number of parents who hit older children has drastically decreased. Straus said its unclear why, though he has some theories. One is that 2- and 3-year-olds are less likely to respond to repeated verbal warnings. Straus said he would like more pediatricians and child-rearing experts to warn against spanking. Hed also like lawmakers to take a stand by dedicating state money to teaching parents about the dangers of corporal punishment. "The best-kept secret in child psychology is that children who were never spanked are among the best behaved," Straus said. -- People who insist that they must have the option of hurting their children are, in fact, admitting that they are too stupid to raise children without brute force and not fit to be parents. -Ivan Gowch ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** Murray Strauss is an idiot. Best ya got? ==>Murray Strauss is an idiot. An idiot with a PhD, tenure at a major university and a worldwide reputation as an expert on violence against children. While, you, on the other hand are . . . what? An anonymous, child-abusing spankophile with no life whatsoever outside of an Internet discussion forum. I'm sure Strauss is devastated at being disrespected by a twisted nonentity like you. Bwahahahaha! -- CHILE: The Minister of Justice of the Government of Chile announces the prohibition of physical punishment as a method of correction for children. -Children's Rights Information Network (CRIN), December 18, 2007 VENEZUELA: Second Latin American country to ban corporal punishment -Children's Rights Information Network (CRIN), December 20, 2007 HEADLINE: Spain bans parents from smacking children Reuters, December 20, 2007 Fifteen states in Europe ban corporal punishment of children both in the home and elsewhere: Sweden (1979), Finland (1983), Norway (1987), Austria (1989), Cyprus (1994), Italy (1996), Denmark (1997), Latvia (1998), Croatia (1999), Bulgaria (2000), Germany (2000), Israel (2000), Iceland (2003), Romania (2004), Ukraine (2004), Hungary (2005), Greece (2007), Netherlands (2007), and Portugal (2007). [21 December 2007] - Fears new anti-smacking legislation in New Zealand would lead to a flood of prosecutions against good parents have proved to be misplaced, police figures show. A review of police activity since the amendment of the Crimes Act, removing the defence of "reasonable force" in child discipline, showed police attended three smacking incidents. Between June 23 and the end of September, there was no increase in the number of "smacking events" attended, said Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope. It appears that The United States and Canada remain among the few countries whose people are stupid enough not to wean themselves off the addiction to hurting their children. -Ivan Gowch ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:25:58 -0700 (PDT), Greegor > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a worldwide reputation as an expert on violence > against children. So I guess that means that he's as obsessed with little a.ses as Ivan the Spankable here, big f.cking deal. > While, you, on the other hand are . . . what? An > anonymous, child-abusing spankophile with no life [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > off the addiction to hurting their children. -Ivan Gowch > ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com** Gather round lads!!!! More feminist bullshit from Ivan the Spankable. The one true and great protector of the a.s. > Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > force and not fit to be parents. -Ivan Gowch > ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com** > > Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > stupid to raise children without brute > > force and not fit to be parents. -Ivan Gowch LK > Gather round lads!!!! LK > LK > More feminist bullshit from Ivan the Spankable. LK > The one true and great protector of the a.s. LOL! A new Monty Python character? > > > Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > LOL! A new Monty Python character? This Strauss was bandied about by some anti-spanking kooks long ago, so much that he was referred to as their great God Strauss. But he was forced to publicly retract one such ""study"". Apparently the problem stemmed from a lack of understanding or accounting for human behavior in relation to his categories. Apparently spanking is a deterrent, and the living threat of spanking is important. If the threat of spanking is credible, it deters also. He didn't account for the parents who claimed to be non-spankers, but who were actually seldom spankers and used a credible threat. Murray Strauss has a political agenda and is desperately seeking science to support that. Ivan, How old are you, really? Impressed by PhD's? Mengele had a PhD. Why do you think Strauss is less of an a-hole because he has one? > > > Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > LOL! A new Monty Python character? < This Strauss was bandied about by some < anti-spanking kooks long ago, so much < that he was referred to as their great God Strauss. Dr. Strauss is a fanatic hardliner. His claims are regarded by MANY in the field of psychology as pure BULLSHIT, including some of his former colleagues. He takes great liberties with his "science" which has simply become SHRILL advocacy as opposed to anything legitimate. His work does not stand close inspection. >>>> Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults >>>> By The Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>> violence, but Straus said his research is the first to show a link >>>> between corporal punishment and sexual behavior. Last night (Wednesday)there was a programme on tele about the british and sex. We got the usual stuff about the poor old repressed brits; but interestingly we came bottom of the pile in almost everything: frequency; number of positions; open-mindedness; preparedness to experiment, etc., etc. The one we came top of the pile in is that we are the whipping and spanking champions of Europe. At the time I wondered what that might have to do with the right-wing extremism of this country and the punitive attitudes that dominate the british way of life. Do brits get off on abusive sex precisely because they are more physically punished than any other group in Europe. Recently we have had Max Mosely (the F1 boss) involved in BDSM style orgies though he denied the NAZI connotations implied in a newspaper article. > Ivan, How old are you, really? > Impressed by PhD's? > Mengele had a PhD. > Why do you think Strauss is less of an a-hole because he has one? So if someone says what you want they are right and if they say what you don't want to hear then they don't matter. Mengele was a doctor; and so are all the psychiatrists who lock people up to serve the purposes of the State. D. > >>>> Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults > >>>> By The Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > D. So far Ivan has been very predictable, bringing up SWEDEN and Murray Strauss. What's the next move in the ultraliberal playbook? Those have failed repeatedly. Got anything new Ivan? > > >>>> Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults > > >>>> By The Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Greg Hanson wrote, "I have to live in fear of another false accusation starting a similar quagmire all over again, forever. Yes, I want liars marked as liars. I am now a "founded" child abuser for making a 7 year old take a fast cold shower. " The 7 yr old child was an unrelated little girl, who, told cpw interviewer he also washed her "private parts" with his bare hands. Greg Hanson wrote, "I confess that I feel foolish and naive about how a quick cold shower becomes sadistic. I've taken many cold showers in my life. I never felt they were sadistic. Should I see them that way? " Hanson reffering to his forcing a 7 yr old non-related little girl into a cold shower. Greg Hanson wrote, "I had two CPS unfoundeds for physical abuse, motivated by an ex-wife's custody battle." Hanson reffering to the children of his ex-wife, this relationship was before the incidents with his girlfriends daughter. Firemonkey, Did you miss Ivan's comment about no sexual kink except for sadism being harmful? Help him out! LOL I don't know whether Firemonkey's outburst qualifies as the next play in the playbook or just a retard who ran out onto the field. > > > >>>> Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults > > > >>>> By The Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > - Show quoted text - gag> Firemonkey, Did you miss Ivan's comment about no sexual kink except for sadism being harmful? No gag I didn't miss it. What sexual kink do you think is harmful other than sadism? I thnink forceing little girls into cold showers would fall into the sadistic sexual kinks. gag>I don't know whether Firemonkey's outburst qualifies as the next play in the playbook or just a retard who ran out onto the field. Outburst? Just quoting you gagfrostabel > > > > >>>> Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults > > > > >>>> By The Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > Outburst? Just quoting you gagfrostabel Firemonkey, look at Ivan's definition of what sex is and isn't harmful. Under that definition sex between adults and kids would not be considered harmful. Ask Ivan why he thinks that! Making a kid take a shower could possibly be sadistic, barely, but not necessarily. The core of sadism is a bit more severe though. Help Ivan to reveal his true agenda with that definition. Ask Ron to help you with the 411 on this. LOL He can help you achieve intellectual superiority over the dial tone. > > > > > >>>> Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults > > > > > >>>> By The Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Firemonkey, look at Ivan's definition of what > sex is and isn't harmful. Under that definition [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - gag, gag, gag, adults do not have sex with children,adults rape children and rape is sadistic, and forcing unrelated naked little 7 year old girls is absolutely sadistic. >> Making a kid take a shower could possibly >> be sadistic, barely, but not necessarily. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > children and rape is sadistic, and forcing unrelated naked little 7 > year old girls is absolutely sadistic. Your obsession over sex with children might be more appropriate in another group. Is your obsession voluntary or involentary? Ever ask CPS for help? ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** On Aug 14, 4:29 pm, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> wrote: > >> Making a kid take a shower could possibly > >> be sadistic, barely, but not necessarily. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I see one of kenny's alters is back > On Aug 14, 4:29 pm, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > I see one of kenny's alters is back Whats that got to do with your obsession over sex with children? Is someone *forcing* you to keep changing the subject to sex with children. What is it with you perverts ? ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** On Aug 14, 6:49 pm, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> wrote: > > On Aug 14, 4:29 pm, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Give it up kenny, we all know its you. "sex with children" does not exist so I would not be obsessed with it. On Aug 14, 7:49 pm, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> wrote: > > On Aug 14, 4:29 pm, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Hi Spanky! >>> Making a kid take a shower could possibly >>> be sadistic, barely, but not necessarily. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >group. Is your obsession voluntary or involentary? Ever ask CPS for help? >** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** It was inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child abuser, who hung out in the bathroom while the little girl was showering. It was inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child abuser, who forced the girl to take at least one cold shower. It was inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child abuser, who also forced the little girl's head under the water when she didn't get out all of the shampoo. Because of these actions, and others, inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child abuser, is listed on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry. It's inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child abuser, who has the issue regarding sexual interest in young girls. He's also expressed interest in one of my friends' little girl, a former student who was 11 or 12 years old at the time, and my own infant daughter. FM isn't the problem. It's inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child abuser. "My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on the Child Abuse registry, for example." -- Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser. Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825febd@posting.google.com> Information about inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child abuser: Proof that inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson doesn't think he's bound by criminal or civil law: Case ID Title Name DOB Role 06571 AGCR015216 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SCSC123709 FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INS CO VS GREGORY SCOTT HANSON HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SCSC139229 EAGLE PROP MGT VS GREGORY HANSON & LISA WATKINS HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SCSC139230 EAGLE PROP MGT VS GREGORY HANSON & LISA WATKINS HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SCSC141447 EAGLE PROPERTY MNGT VS LISA WATKINS ET AL HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SCSC141448 EAGLE PROPERTY MNGT VS LISA WATKINS ET AL HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SMSM004543 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SMSM008629 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREGORY S HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 STCR429489 STATE OF IOWA vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 STCR441449 STATE OF IOWA vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571CRSTCR146191 CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571CRSTCR214087 CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571MASTWG261061 CITY OF MARION vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT The rant inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson authored for Lisa about how unfair it was for DHS to remove Lisa's daughter from Greg's continued abuse: IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY JUVENILE DIVISION IN THE INTEREST OF NO. JVJV-12345 CHILD A. LASTNAME DOB: 00-00-99 MOTION TO CLARIFY MINOR CHILD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM INAPPROPRIATE SERVICES COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate and inquisitive services. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has IMPOSED a Service Plan onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION of the Service Plan. We have complained about this for MOST of the last 11 months, and have been laughed off by Judas of DHS, Deb of LSS and ignored by Juvenile Court. Greg showed the quote from the US DHHS Caseworker handbook to Deb, outside of our house, using the trunk of the car as a work surface. We have seen no sign that she passed this information to Judas. Deb characterized this in writing as if it was aberrant behavior and avoidance of personal issues. Judas has been informed of this by way of SEVERAL documents, yet shown no sign of truly understanding their significance. The Iowa DHS computer blank FORM was apparently recently modified to make a clear statement about this point, with boxed in text for emphasis, so it must be important to SOMEBODY at DHS, perhaps due to a consent decree. On January 99th, in court, I (Suzy Q. Mother) was asked by the judge what MORE services would help, but got the "stone wall" treatment regarding removal of inappropriate services. It clearly seemed to be a "closed issue" with the Judge. Something is wrong with that. This flies in the face of the concept of "Active Participation in the Formation of Service Plan". Federal Case law says "opportunity to object after formation is NOT a substitute for ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION of the Service Plan". This is a Federal regulation and it's in the Iowa caseworker manual too. Services DHS is attempting to IMPOSE upon our family turned out upon further investigation to be contaminated beyond belief with putrid INPUT. The words "fishing expedition" come to mind. Domestic Violence Victim Counseling Never mind that there has been no Domestic Violence in the 3 years that Greg has been with us. > > > > > > >>>> Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults > > > > > > >>>> By The Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > children and rape is sadistic, and forcing unrelated naked little 7 > year old girls is absolutely sadistic. Constantly writing about such actions is pretty twisted as well. It shows how your thought process works. > > > > > > > >>>> Study: Spanking children affects their sex lives as adults > > > > > > > >>>> By The Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Your attempt to intimidate me into not reposting gag's own words is noted, and dismissed. [...] >> > gag, gag, gag, adults do not have sex with children,adults rape >> > children and rape is sadistic, and forcing unrelated naked little 7 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Your attempt to intimidate me into not reposting gag's own words is >noted, and dismissed. Greg posts the same thing over and over. According to LK, such activity is pretty twisted. LK was condemning Greg's actions if he was condemning yours. Now we can see if LK is willing to hold Greg to the same standards he holds to you.  SignatureDo not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. FM > gag, gag, gag, adults do not have sex with children,adults rape FM > children and rape is sadistic, and forcing unrelated naked little 7 FM > year old girls is absolutely sadistic. LK > Constantly writing about such actions is pretty twisted as well. It LK > shows how your thought process works. FM > Your attempt to intimidate me into not reposting gag's own words is FM > noted, and dismissed. I did no such thing Roberta. I was just stating a conclusion I came too based on your repetative observable behavior. KW > Greg posts the same thing over and over. It isn't as much the repetative posting that is of concern, it's what is being posted. Like a sick twisted fantasy of something she wishes somebody would do to her but nobody ever would because they all know she's a basket case. KW > According to LK, such KW > activity is pretty twisted. Yes kent, obsessing over such things, such as little girls in the shower, like firemonkey does by posting reminders of this over and over and over again is pretty twisted. KW > LK was condemning Greg's actions if he KW > was condemning yours. My God Kent! Where do you come up with such silly nonsense? I made no reference to Greg's actions whatsoever. Roberta did! I was simply responding to Roberta's comment. KW > Now we can see if LK is willing to hold Greg to the same standards KW > he holds to you. Of course I would hold Greg to the same standards. Just as soon as I see him posting repeated references to such things. I'm just stating an observation Kent. Take it or leave it. I hold firemonky to nothing but the very lowest of standards. They're really not all that hard to beat. BTW Kent, Have you covered all of your tracks yet? > FM > gag, gag, gag, adults do not have sex with children,adults rape > FM > children and rape is sadistic, and forcing unrelated naked little [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I did no such thing Roberta. I was just stating a conclusion I came > too based on your repetative observable behavior. You can ignore grag's inappropriate behavior with a little girl who had the misfortune to be forced to live with grag for three years? You'd rather focus your attention on someone who finds grag's behavior disturbing. >> FM > gag, gag, gag, adults do not have sex with children,adults rape >> FM > children and rape is sadistic, and forcing unrelated naked little [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You can ignore grag's inappropriate behavior Nobody has ignored your opinions about Gregs case -- it's just that we don't find it necessary to obsess over it with scores of posts every day -- 24/7/365 for 8 straight years. You CPS scumsuckers are pathetic. <snipped rest of Delusional Dan's nuttiness> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> wrote: > >> FM > gag, gag, gag, adults do not have sex with children,adults rape > >> FM > children and rape is sadistic, and forcing unrelated naked little [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Nobody has ignored your opinions about Gregs case Glad to hear it! > -- it's just that we > don't find it necessary to obsess over it with scores of posts every day > -- 24/7/365 for 8 straight years. And don't think the end is in sight. > You CPS scumsuckers are pathetic. grag's a sadistic pervert. Deal with it, pornbag. > On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dan, do you still have your puppet bear? > > On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective- services, misc.legal, soc.men From: LK <Patis...@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 06:53:14 -0700 (PDT) Local: Sat, Aug 16 2008 8:53 am Subject: Re: Does forcing 7yr old little girl into a cold shower affect their sex lives as adults? Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author snip > Dan, do you still have your puppet bear?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - lk, you have posted at least 52 times about this puppet bear thing, yet you also posted.... LK View profile More options Aug 16, 8:41 am snip <I ignore nothing. I just don't obsess over such things. > Using your standards, you are obsessed with the puppet bear. > > > On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > - Show quoted text - lk? > > > > On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Not at all. I only use it when it's relevent and necessary. Nor do I go into graphic detail. [...] >> > Using your standards, you are obsessed with the puppet bear.- Hide quoted text - >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Not at all. I only use it when it's relevent and necessary. Seems, in your view, to be relevant and necessary a great deal. >Nor do I >go into graphic detail. When has anyone gone into graphic detail regarding Greg's abuse of Lisa's daughter? SignatureBless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin. I poked a badger with a spoon. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Seems, in your view, to be relevant and necessary a great deal. Dan opens himself up for it a great deal. > >Nor do I > >go into graphic detail. > > When has anyone gone into graphic detail regarding Greg's abuse of > Lisa's daughter? Pretty much every day. > -- > > Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin. > I poked a badger with a spoon. > > On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Dan, do you still have your puppet bear? I have the documentation that demonstrates it was a fabrication on the part of the case worker, that detectives at the same interview didn't record any disclosures and that the allegation was thrown out of court by the Judge. I have the documentation that the CW claimed the forensic eval was consistent with abuse while she wrote the opposite to the detectives. I have the documentation from the CW in which she claims the detectives will be witnesses of the disclosure, while their case record doesn't mention a disclosure at all. TY for continuing to bring this subject up, lk. I LOVE explaining what I did to the CW and CPS!!! DS > I have the documentation Let's see it Dan! DS > that the CW claimed the forensic eval was DS > consistent with abuse while she wrote DS > the opposite to the detectives. On Aug 16, 9:21 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote: > On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - < Dan, do you still have your puppet bear? He takes it in his bathroom and "PLAYS" with it EVERY night! >> On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >Dan, do you still have your puppet bear? Your constant posting of the puppet bear is twisted, by your standards. SignatureDo not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. > >> On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> >> On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> >> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - Does your lack of a comment indicate an acceptance of the truth that, by your standards, your actions are twisted? SignatureDo not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. > >> >> On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> > >> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Does your lack of a comment indicate an acceptance of the truth > that, by your standards, your actions are twisted? No Kent. My lack of comment indicates that I have a life and chose to go off and spend some time with my wife. And my actions are not the issue here, since you're the one bringing up the puppet bear. Nor do I constantly post references to such. > -- > Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... > for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > >> On Aug 16, 8:37 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@washington.dc> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Your constant posting of the puppet bear is twisted, by your > standards. That's fine Kent. Whatever you say. > -- > Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... > for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - FM > gag, gag, gag, adults do not have sex with children,adults rape FM > children and rape is sadistic, and forcing unrelated naked little 7 FM > year old girls is absolutely sadistic. LK > Constantly writing about such actions is pretty twisted as well. It LK > shows how your thought process works. FM > Your attempt to intimidate me into not reposting gag's own words is FM > noted, and dismissed. I did no such thing Roberta. I was just stating a conclusion I came too based on your repetative observable behavior. KW > Greg posts the same thing over and over. It isn't as much the repetative posting that is of concern, it's what is being posted. Like a sick twisted fantasy of something she wishes somebody would do to her but nobody ever would because they all know she's a basket case. KW > According to LK, such KW > activity is pretty twisted. Yes kent, obsessing over such things, such as little girls in the shower, like firemonkey does by posting reminders of this over and over and over again is pretty twisted. ============= Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" about making the child take a shower. The child said it was "cold" but that is a relative term as opposed to not hot. Roberta gets off on drawing these extreme conclusions because she doesn't like Greg. The interesting thing is that Greg was never charged with a "crime" just some social worker concluded that in HER opinion it was "abuse" and I understand that while CPS concludes that it was a "FOUNDED" case of abuse, the court has yet to make a final ruling on that.What do we KNOW for sure about Greg? What we KNOW is that Greg, represented by a Public Defender, took the advice that it was "no big deal" took a plea bargain in two MISDEMEANOR domestic violence cases. The FACTS of which make both big yawners. BUT they are weapons that Sullivan and Buttmonkey can use against him regardless of how legitimate they are. MAYBE they both would do well to look at the Crespo case from New Jersey and see the major FLAWS in the DV laws, Roberta leaps to the conclusions she does because she is not a well person. > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can > come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" about > making the child take a shower. Why are you implying that it was a single cold shower? Even grag gave up on that. His posts prove otherwise. And grag's motivation was more of a sadistic nature than a sexual one > The child said it was "cold" but that is a > relative term as opposed to not hot. grag said he forced the little girl to take cold showers. > Roberta gets off on drawing these > extreme conclusions because she doesn't like Greg. grag's a sadist. > The interesting thing is > that Greg was never charged with a "crime" just some social worker concluded > that in HER opinion it was "abuse" and I understand that while CPS concludes > that it was a "FOUNDED" case of abuse, the court has yet to make a final > ruling on that. Is that an active issue to be decided by a Judge? > What do we KNOW for sure about Greg? What we KNOW is that > Greg, represented by a Public Defender, took the advice that it was "no big > deal" took a plea bargain in two MISDEMEANOR domestic violence cases. The > FACTS of which make both big yawners. Which have nothing to do with what grag did to the little girl, other than the fact that grag has a propensity to abuse helpless females. And I believe grag only took one plea bargain, and the other was a conviction by a jury. > BUT they are weapons that Sullivan and > Buttmonkey can use against him regardless of how legitimate they are. Are you claiming they are illegitimate convictions? > MAYBE > they both would do well to look at the Crespo case from New Jersey and see > the major FLAWS in the DV laws, Which has NOTHING to do with grag's convictions or founding for child abuse. > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can > come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" about > making the child take a shower. < Why are you implying that it was a single cold shower? What PROOF do you have that it was more? LINKS gimme a goddddddamn LINK! I want a LINK! < And grag's motivation was more of a sadistic nature than a sexual one By YOUR definition Mr., CPS. > The child said it was "cold" but that is a relative term as opposed to not > hot. < grag said he forced the little girl to take cold showers. Look DIPSHIT - I hate to break this NEWS ALERT to you, but kids take cold showers all over the world, some don't even get a shower at all. IO might invite you to Cuba sometime with your SMART a.s BULLSHIT where many if not MOST kids take COLD SHOWERS. > Roberta gets off on drawing these extreme conclusions because she doesn't > like Greg. < grag's a sadist. Yes DOCTOR SULLIVAN - we all KNOW your "expert diagnosis!" > The interesting thing is that Greg was never charged with a "crime" just > some social worker concluded > that in HER opinion it was "abuse" and I understand that while CPS > concludes > that it was a "FOUNDED" case of abuse, the court has yet to make a final > ruling on that. < Is that an active issue to be decided by a Judge? As I understand it - Danny BOY, yes! > What do we KNOW for sure about Greg? What we KNOW is that > Greg, represented by a Public Defender, took the advice that it was "no > big > deal" took a plea bargain in two MISDEMEANOR domestic violence cases. The > FACTS of which make both big yawners. < Which have nothing to do with what grag did to the little girl, other < than the fact that grag has a propensity to abuse helpless females. Then WHY do you suffer convulsions and keep brining up the DV issues EVERY FRIGGIN DAY Danny? Abuse by WHOSE definition? Doctro Dan Sullivan's? < And I believe grag only took one plea bargain, and the other was a conviction by a jury. Of a MISDEMEANOR..... Who represented him at the trial Danny? Since YOU were there and gave your "EXPERT TESTIMONY?" > BUT they are weapons that Sullivan and Buttmonkey can use against him > regardless of how legitimate they are. <Are you claiming they are illegitimate convictions? Oh Danny you are so CUTE! In a sense, Danny boy, YES, I am. From my understanding of the cases, had Greg had ADEQUATE legal representation the DV complaints would both have been dismissed, and the CPS case would be LONG GONE. What Greg has faced is the FACT that in the American legal system, you can have have all the justice you can afford. If you can't afford any, you don't get any!!!! > MAYBE they both would do well to look at the Crespo case from New Jersey > and see > the major FLAWS in the DV laws, < Which has NOTHING to do with grag's convictions or founding for child abuse. Danny as far as I know Greg has NOT been "convicted" of child abuse, although a social worker has "founded" him, and my understanding is that the final call on that is STILL to be decided by the court. But JUDGE Sullivan has already ruled! > > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can > > come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What PROOF do you have that it was more? LINKS gimme a goddddddamn LINK! > I want a LINK! http://tinyurl.com/54snl5 "we were criticized for using short cold showers as an aversive..." > < And grag's motivation was more of a sadistic nature than a sexual one > > By YOUR definition Mr., CPS. Daniel Webster. > > The child said it was "cold" but that is a relative term as opposed to not > > hot. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Look DIPSHIT - I hate to break this NEWS ALERT to you, but kids take > cold showers all over the world, some don't even get a shower at all. grag FORCED the little girl to take cold showers. > IO > might invite you to Cuba sometime with your SMART a.s BULLSHIT where many if [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > As I understand it - Danny BOY, yes! Link? > > What do we KNOW for sure about Greg? What we KNOW is that > > Greg, represented by a Public Defender, took the advice that it was "no [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Then WHY do you suffer convulsions and keep brining up the DV issues > EVERY FRIGGIN DAY Danny? Abuse by WHOSE definition? Doctro Dan Sullivan's? Abuse by the Court's of Iowa. > < And I believe grag only took one plea bargain, and the other was a > conviction by a jury. > > Of a MISDEMEANOR..... So you know grag was convicted by a jury. Why pretend both his convictions were plea bargains, when you know that isn't true? > Who represented him at the trial Danny? Since YOU > were there and gave your "EXPERT TESTIMONY?" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oh Danny you are so CUTE! In a sense, Danny boy, YES, I am. CLASSIC pornbag bullshit!!!! > From my > understanding of the cases, had Greg had ADEQUATE legal representation the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Danny as far as I know Greg has NOT been "convicted" of child abuse, Spousal abuse. Twice. > although a social worker has "founded" him, and my understanding is that the > final call on that is STILL to be decided by the court. Since Feb of 2001? I believe Lisa Watkins stipulated to grag's abuse. And grag wasn't a principal. > > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can > > come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" > > about > > making the child take a shower. > < Why are you implying that it was a single cold shower? > > What PROOF do you have that it was more? LINKS gimme a goddddddamn LINK! > I want a LINK! http://tinyurl.com/54snl5 "we were criticized for using short cold showers as an aversive..." Tell me Danny - in your EXPERT OPINION - as a Lawyer, as a Doctor, as a scientist, as a psychologist, as a Judge, as a leading PROFESSOR of English, tell us just HOW MANY (EXACT number please) do the words "cold showers" mean? Does it NECESSARILY mean more than one? Does it mean as YOU claim, mean a confession to MANY? As you LEAP off the top of MOUNT EGO, Danny, and your PROOF that it means what THE GREAT DAN SULLIVAN says it does???? Have YOU seen charging documents? The COURT FILE? Spoken to the agency in Iowa? Or is this just ONE MORE example of the GREAT DAN SULLIVAN leaping to a conclusion from the top of MOUNT EGO! >> > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can >> > come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >tell us just HOW MANY (EXACT number please) do the words "cold showers" >mean? I'm not Dan, but it means more than one. >Does it NECESSARILY mean more than one? Yes. Showers is plural. It means at least two. >Does it mean as YOU claim, >mean a confession to MANY? It can. It definitely means your implication of only one is, at best, in error. >As you LEAP off the top of MOUNT EGO, Danny, and >your PROOF that it means what THE GREAT DAN SULLIVAN says it does???? It proves Greg has claimed at least two cold showers. This is in direct contrast to your implication of one. >Have >YOU seen charging documents? The COURT FILE? Spoken to the agency in Iowa? >Or is this just ONE MORE example of the GREAT DAN SULLIVAN leaping to a >conclusion from the top of MOUNT EGO! If Greg lied then it's 100% Greg's fault that people state he forced the girl to take at least two cold showers as a means of abuse. "Miranda was a STUPID WASTE OF TIME AND DID NOTHING!" -- Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting and The A-Team. > > > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can > > > come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > tell us just HOW MANY (EXACT number please) do the words "cold showers" > mean? More than one. > Does it NECESSARILY mean more than one? Yes. Unless... If you were playing softball and you got hit in the crotch with a line drive and you told me you were hit in the testicles... should I assume you only have ONE??? > Does it mean as YOU claim, > mean a confession to MANY? grag's story has changed many times. "This child was not wetting because of a physical ailment of any kind, nor a psychiatric disorder. She just simply didn't want to take time out of her exciting activities to waste 5 minutes in the bathroom." grag made the diagnosis all by himself. "Which was the result of a kid so extremely psyched up about school activities that she didn't want to miss a thing while in the bathroom. It was a concious choice to push the limits of her bladder, which of course often lead to "accidents". "They started out being warm happy showers, which became a perverse positive reinforcement for wetting." "The fast, less happy showers motivated her to respond to her urinary urges." But then he claims after the cold rinse shower he allowed her to switch to a warm shower for her hair. > > > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can > > > come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > tell us just HOW MANY (EXACT number please) do the words "cold showers" > mean? < More than one. So PROFESSOR, in your EXPERT opinion it couldn't be a figure of speech, it can ONLY mean MANY MANY MANY MANY! As an EXPERT, that is. > Does it NECESSARILY mean more than one? < Yes. Now that is your EXPERT opinion? < Unless... < If you were playing softball and you got hit in the crotch with a line < drive and you told me you were hit in the testicles... should I assume < you only have ONE??? You shouldn't a.s/U/ME anything dipshit. > Does it mean as YOU claim, mean a confession to MANY? < grag's story has changed many times. But youy hold him to the ONE that suits whatever INSANE RANT you are making at the moment. I see. And YOU, of course DIAGNOSE it as "sexual." Very interesting. >> > > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can >> > > come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > So PROFESSOR, in your EXPERT opinion it couldn't be a figure of speech, >it can ONLY mean MANY MANY MANY MANY! As an EXPERT, that is. It means at least two. >> Does it NECESSARILY mean more than one? > >< Yes. > > Now that is your EXPERT opinion? It's common knowledge. Plural means two or more. >< Unless... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You shouldn't a.s/U/ME anything dipshit. So you had them removed? Yikes! >> Does it mean as YOU claim, mean a confession to MANY? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >making at the moment. I see. And YOU, of course DIAGNOSE it as "sexual." >Very interesting. That was you, Kenny-Bob. You alone claim any sexual implication from the cold showers. "We'd like to arrange for YOUR rape..." --Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting, from an argument with a woman on the talk.rape newsgroup He admits to authoring the threat here: http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5 >> > > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can >> > > come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Now that is your EXPERT opinion? Why don't you have grag say how many times he humiliated the little girl by forcing her to take cold showers. DS > Why don't you have grag say how DS > many times he humiliated the little DS > girl by forcing her to take cold showers. Who would "have you" answer the questions you haven't answered, Dan? What is it about your behavior or lifestyle that caused various people to call in reports of child abuse on you over 15 times? Did you indeed get caught having gay sex? Are you a drag queen? Tatoos of naked ladies in your shoulders? Work in a strip club? There is SOMETHING about you that causes people in your area to worry about you. Why haven't you explained this in the newsgroups? You once postured that your bipolar ex called in all of the ""false"" reports but when asked if she called in ALL of the 15 + abuse reports, you declined to answer. Why would you decline to answer that question, Dan? The answer is sorta obvious. If your nut case ex kept calling in that many times, at some point long before 15 the agency would have to actually WARN her about making false reports or find some way to partly or completely disregard her false reports. That's why I think that not ALL of the 15 + abuse reports were made by your nut case ex. And I think you have a pretty good idea of who ELSE phoned in their concerns. > DS > Why don't you have grag say how > DS > many times he humiliated the little [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > about making false reports or find some > way to partly or completely disregard her false reports. Not completely true. The reports against me totaled exactly 47 before the state took it upon themselves to refuse to accept the reports. Remember, though, that was before the days of caller ID and such. It was harder to catch a false reporter. > That's why I think that not ALL of the 15 + abuse > reports were made by your nut case ex. > > And I think you have a pretty good idea of who > ELSE phoned in their concerns. > > DS > Why don't you have grag say how > > DS > many times he humiliated the little [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Remember, though, that was before the days of caller ID and such. It > was harder to catch a false reporter. Dan deceptively implied that the reports were all from his mental case ex wife. But they were not. Are you afraid to let Dan answer the questions himself? "Have Dan" answer the damn questions please. > > That's why I think that not ALL of the 15 + abuse > > reports were made by your nut case ex. > > > And I think you have a pretty good idea of who > > ELSE phoned in their concerns. Dan has never described his wife as enlisting or bribing others to make false reports. But he has acknowledged there were several reporters. Dan's the one who said (paraphrased) [ Where there's smoke there's fire. ] in reference to my two investigations ever. With your 47 false reports and your DV convicxtion for assaulting your kid, I woulda thought you would have spoken up a bit about that. Dan himself claims 15 investigations and 5 foundeds but still thought that the ""Where there's smoke there's fire" line was smart! He's a regular strategic genius?? > > > DS > Why don't you have grag say how > > > DS > many times he humiliated the little [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > were all from his mental case ex wife. > But they were not. One could say that I 'deceptively imply' that all the reports made against me, the total of 47, were by my ex husband when they were not. But, in all honesty, I'm not being deceptive because whether he picked up the phone and made the calls himself, or caused another to do so ...it was still he that instigated the false reports. I don't tell people the whole, long, drawn out story. I just say, simply, that my ex husband lost his visitation rights and his legal and physical custody because of 47 false CPS reports made against me. I'm not lying. To deceptively imply that because someone does not tell you what happened right down to the very most minute detail they are lying is a lie. > Are you afraid to let Dan answer > the questions himself? Ummmm.....have I somehow prevented him from answering? Did I tell him "DAN DON"T ANSWER HIM!!"? Did I call his internet provider and have his service shut down? Did I hack his account and change the password so that he could not answer? Did I yank out his phone or cable line to prevent him from answering? What, exactly, did I do to indicate to you that I was 'afraid' of Dan answering your question? Or, is that just more 'deceptively implying' on your part? > "Have Dan" answer the damn questions please. I don't tell Dan what to do. Are you nuts? > > > That's why I think that not ALL of the 15 + abuse > > > reports were made by your nut case ex. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Dan has never described his wife as enlisting > or bribing others to make false reports. So? Does he have to draw you a map? Lay out schematics? What's he got to do? > But he has acknowledged there were several reporters. And in my case, I do as well. But, when not feeling like telling the whole sordid story all over again (and again and again and again) I just say that it was my ex. Nothing more, nothing less. > Dan's the one who said (paraphrased) [ Where > there's smoke there's fire. ] in reference to > my two investigations ever. With your 47 > false reports and your DV convicxtion for > assaulting your kid, I woulda thought you > would have spoken up a bit about that. If I'm not mistaken, the original quote was made before my time here. And, whether it was or not...I agree with it. > Dan himself claims 15 investigations and > 5 foundeds but still thought that the > ""Where there's smoke there's fire" > line was smart! It's a fact. > He's a regular strategic genius?? And you're a mentally disturbed individual? >>> > > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can >>> > > come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Why don't you have grag say how many times he humiliated the little girl > by forcing her to take cold showers. Why don't you? What's the big deal about cold showers? MANY kids in this world don't get ANY showers and would be THANKFUL to be able to tale a cold one. Sullivan you are an a.s. Really a narrow minded a.s. Do you know how many children in the UNITED STATES don't have hot water at home? Do you have a frigging CLUE Sullivan? I bet NOT! And IF your sorry a.s had ever traveled outside the U.S. you might have a clue how many in 3rd world countries must take cold showers because there is NO hot water! Your ARROGANCE is amusing PROFESSOR SULLIVAN.... Almost as much as your ignorance! > >>> > > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can > >>> > > come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Why don't you? What's the big deal about cold showers? grag forced a naked little girl to take cold showers. It was not her choice. She wasn't being punished by her parent. A man who moved in with her mother, who sat around all day long unemployed by choice, who spanked her when he wanted to, who drove her around so she could pick deposit bottles out of garbage cans and then he could claim the money was his contribution to the household expenses, who turned her living room into nothing more than a storage unit where sitting down had to be preceeded by moving grag's crap off of the furniture, who waited in the bathroom for her to be finished showering so he could had her a towel, who destroyed any chance of an early reunification with her mother because he thought he could score cash in by suing CPS, whose presence and garbage in the single wide trailer made it impossible for her to have friends come over and play with her, this man is grag hanson. > >>> > > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker > >>> > > can [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Why don't you? What's the big deal about cold showers? < grag forced a naked little girl to take cold showers. Danny boy, don't know about your house, but I am not aware of ANY where folks take showers with their clothes ON. EXCEPT YOU! But then you ARE more than a little bit WEIRD Sullivan! Tell me, do you STILL have intercourse with the puppet bear in front of children? > >>> > > Well what gets lost in this insane thread is how a social worker can > >>> > > come to the conclusion that there "just had to be something sexual" [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - How many unrelated 6-7 year old little girls are forced naked into cold showers, around the world? If you know. > > > > DS > Why don't you have grag say how > > > > DS > many times he humiliated the little [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > were all from his mental case ex wife. > > But they were not. G > Are you afraid to let Dan answer G > the questions himself? G > "Have Dan" answer the damn questions please. DS > I'll answer whatever question I want. Then I'll point out your evasiveness all I want. > > > > That's why I think that not ALL of the 15 + abuse > > > > reports were made by your nut case ex. > > > > > And I think you have a pretty good idea of who > > > > ELSE phoned in their concerns. G > Dan has never described his wife as enlisting G > or bribing others to make false reports. DS > Does that mean she didn't? Yes it indicates that. G > But he has acknowledged there were several reporters. DS > Did I? Yup. DS > Why don't you have grag say how DS > many times he humiliated the little girl DS > by forcing her to take cold showers. KRP > Why don't you? What's the big deal about KRP > cold showers? MANY kids in this world KRP > don't get ANY showers and would be KRP > THANKFUL to be able to tale a cold KRP > one. Sullivan you are an a.s. Really KRP > a narrow minded a.s. Do you know how KRP > many children in the UNITED STATES KRP > don't have hot water at home? Do you KRP > have a frigging CLUE Sullivan? I bet NOT! KRP > And IF your sorry a.s had ever traveled KRP > outside the U.S. you might have a clue KRP > how many in 3rd world countries must KRP > take cold showers because there is KRP > NO hot water! Your ARROGANCE is KRP > amusing PROFESSOR SULLIVAN.... KRP > Almost as much as your ignorance! Firemonkey Roberta wrote FM > How many unrelated 6-7 year old little FM > girls are forced naked into cold showers, FM > around the world? If you know. Do they all get forced into GYNO EXAMS for sex when there was NO HINT of any such accusation? > G > But he has acknowledged there were several reporters. > > DS > Did I? > > Yup. You're wrong. > Firemonkey Roberta wrote > FM > How many unrelated 6-7 year old little [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for sex when there was NO HINT of any > such accusation? grag, almost everything you did to the little girl justified an exam for SA. > > > > > DS > Why don't you have grag say how > > > > > DS > many times he humiliated the little [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Was the exam done before or after the little girl reported that you had been washing her private parts with your bare hands? G > Do they all get forced into GYNO EXAMS G > for sex when there was NO HINT of any G > such accusation? FM > Was the exam done before or FM > after the little girl reported that you FM > had been washing her private FM > parts with your bare hands? Couldn't be before or after, since she never said that. A caseworker SAYING the child said that is actually sort of a giveaway, if you think about it. If the kid really HAD said such a thing the caseworker would NOT want the offender to know who pointed them out. They would also present it in COURT. They did not, ever. Ergo, the caseworker LIED, thinking she was pulling a slick little con to get the ""bad guy"". > G > Do they all get forced into GYNO EXAMS > G > for sex when there was NO HINT of any [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Ergo, the caseworker LIED, thinking she was > pulling a slick little con to get the ""bad guy"". Pity all we have is your word on that gaga, and all know what that is worth. >G > Do they all get forced into GYNO EXAMS >G > for sex when there was NO HINT of any [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Ergo, the caseworker LIED, thinking she was >pulling a slick little con to get the ""bad guy"". By your standards, you are guilty of the act. Information about inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child abuser: Proof that inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson doesn't think he's bound by criminal or civil law: Case ID Title Name DOB Role 06571 AGCR015216 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SCSC123709 FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INS CO VS GREGORY SCOTT HANSON HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SCSC139229 EAGLE PROP MGT VS GREGORY HANSON & LISA WATKINS HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SCSC139230 EAGLE PROP MGT VS GREGORY HANSON & LISA WATKINS HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SCSC141447 EAGLE PROPERTY MNGT VS LISA WATKINS ET AL HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SCSC141448 EAGLE PROPERTY MNGT VS LISA WATKINS ET AL HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SMSM004543 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 SMSM008629 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREGORY S HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 STCR429489 STATE OF IOWA vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571 STCR441449 STATE OF IOWA vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571CRSTCR146191 CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571CRSTCR214087 CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT 06571MASTWG261061 CITY OF MARION vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT The rant inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson authored for Lisa about how unfair it was for DHS to remove Lisa's daughter from Greg's continued abuse: IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY JUVENILE DIVISION IN THE INTEREST OF NO. JVJV-12345 CHILD A. LASTNAME DOB: 00-00-99 MOTION TO CLARIFY MINOR CHILD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM INAPPROPRIATE SERVICES COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate and inquisitive services. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has IMPOSED a Service Plan onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION of the Service Plan. We have complained about this for MOST of the last 11 months, and have been laughed off by Judas of DHS, Deb of LSS and ignored by Juvenile Court. Greg showed the quote from the US DHHS Caseworker handbook to Deb, outside of our house, using the trunk of the car as a work surface. We have seen no sign that she passed this information to Judas. Deb characterized this in writing as if it was aberrant behavior and avoidance of personal issues. Judas has been informed of this by way of SEVERAL documents, yet shown no sign of truly understanding their significance. The Iowa DHS computer blank FORM was apparently recently modified to make a clear statement about this point, with boxed in text for emphasis, so it must be important to SOMEBODY at DHS, perhaps due to a consent decree. On January 99th, in court, I (Suzy Q. Mother) was asked by the judge what MORE services would help, but got the "stone wall" treatment regarding removal of inappropriate services. It clearly seemed to be a "closed issue" with the Judge. Something is wrong with that. This flies in the face of the concept of "Active Participation in the Formation of Service Plan". Federal Case law says "opportunity to object after formation is NOT a substitute for ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION of the Service Plan". This is a Federal regulation and it's in the Iowa caseworker manual too. Services DHS is attempting to IMPOSE upon our family turned out upon further investigation to be contaminated beyond belief with putrid INPUT. The words "fishing expedition" come to mind. Domestic Violence Victim Counseling Never mind that there has been no Domestic Violence in the 3 years that Greg has been with us. Hey Kent FM > Was the exam done before or after the little girl reported that you FM > had been washing her private parts with your bare hands? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/eede638 29d132a87 That's pretty graphic and twisted right there. IMO. Thank you for proving my point Roberta. > Hey Kent > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thank you for proving my point Roberta. lk, we have been over this. If you find my posts offensive, don't read them. I will continue to post what I wish, you can approve or not approve, it don't matter to me at all, really! > > Hey Kent > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > them. I will continue to post what I wish, you can approve or not > approve, it don't matter to me at all, really! That's fine Roberta, I was just proving my point to Kent. On Aug 17, 5:14 pm, Firemonkey <firemonke...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 17, 3:51 pm, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > them. I will continue to post what I wish, you can approve or not > approve, it don't matter to me at all, really! < That's fine Roberta, I was just proving my point to Kent. Considering this "washing private parts" is a product of Roberta's mind, it says all that needs to be said about HER sexual problems. That's HER allegation and how SHE thinks! One fukkkked up angry old broad! >> > Hey Kent >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >That's fine Roberta, I was just proving my point to Kent. Yet, as with everything else, you only managed to prove yourself wrong. SignatureBless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin. I poked a badger with a spoon. > >> > Hey Kent > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Yet, as with everything else, you only managed to prove yourself > wrong. Just because you say something doesn't mean that it is true Kent. You are about as credible as CPS worker with a puppet bear story. >> >> > Hey Kent >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Just because you say something doesn't mean that it is true Kent. You >are about as credible as CPS worker with a puppet bear story. Unlike you, I've not been reduced to lying in a futile attempt to make a point. SignatureDo not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. > >> >> > Hey Kent > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Unlike you, I've not been reduced to lying in a futile attempt to > make a point. No, but you have resorted to lying in a desperate attempt to hide anything that links you to the garage burglar. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message